JUDGMENT Krishna Murari, C.J.(Oral) - For the reasons stated in CM-4405-LPA-2018, delay of 32 days in filing the appeal is condoned and application stands disposed of. 2. This intra-Court appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 10.07.2018 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein challenging the award of the Labour Court dismissing his claim. 3. Undisputed facts are that the appellant-petitioner was initially employed as an Apprentice and he worked on the said post from 15.09.1980 to 14.09.1981 and thereafter as temporary Office Assistant from 14.10.1981 to 17.05.1982. Subsequently, he was working as a skilled worker since 10.06.1983. During the course of his employment, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 24.05.1996 containing charges which tantamount to major misconduct which was followed by another charge-sheet dated 10.06.1996. After the domestic enquiry, penalty proposed was that of dismissal from service but, subsequently, taking a lenient view, the punishment of dismissal was converted into discharge by way of punishment so that the appellant-petitioner may get the terminal benefits. 4. A reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was made to adjudicate the question as to whether the termination of services of workman is justified and in order and, if not so, to what relief he is entitled. The Labour Court, analyzing the claim of the parties and the evidence brought on record, returned a finding that the disciplinary proceedings were drawn against the workman in accordance with the procedure prescribed and there was no illegality in the same and that the workman was guilty of major misconduct and has rightly been awarded the punishment. 5. Aggrieved by the same, writ petition was filed. The learned single Judge affirmed the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the disciplinary proceedings were held strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed and they were not vitiated. A categorical finding has been returned by the Labour Court, affirmed by the learned single Judge, that the workman was given proper opportunity to participate in the proceedings and he was allowed to engage his representative and also to cross-examine the witnesses and to lead evidence and also to address arguments. The aforesaid findings are findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence brought on record and, thus, no exception can be taken to that. 6. The aforesaid findings are findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence brought on record and, thus, no exception can be taken to that. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant-petitioner had given a list of witnesses, who were employed with the management, and, despite repeated requests, the Enquiry Officer did not call those witnesses and, thus, the enquiry is vitiated in law. 7. We are afraid, the argument cannot be accepted inasmuch as the representative of the workman initially sought time to produce the evidence which was granted to him and thereafter the workman himself appeared as witness and ultimately the representative of the workman made a statement before the Enquiry Officer that he does not wish to produce any witness in support of his case. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of the workman was closed. Once the right, which is being pressed into service before us to argue that the proceedings are vitiated, was given up by the workman himself before the Enquiry Officer, the same cannot constitute a ground to urge that the enquiry proceedings are vitiated. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon a judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Shiv Datt Sharma vs. The State of Punjab and others, 1962 AIR (Punjab) 355 to support the contention that the Enquiry Officer's failure to summon the witnesses serving under the employer on the request of delinquent employee the same amounts to denial of right to defence and, thus, there is a failure of justice. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition but, as a matter of fact and since in the case in hand the workman himself gave up the right before the Enquiry Officer and closed his evidence, this argument cannot be of any help to him. 9. It is also to be taken note of that the workman neither disclosed before the Enquiry Officer nor even during the proceedings before this Court as to what he intended to adduce by way of evidence from the witnesses which he wanted to examine in defence and how those witnesses were relevant. In the absence of these facts, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether any prejudice has been caused to the appellant-petitioner by not summoning the said witnesses. 10. In the absence of these facts, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether any prejudice has been caused to the appellant-petitioner by not summoning the said witnesses. 10. Despite the appellant-petitioner having been found guilty of major misconduct, taking a lenient view, the management instead of dismissing him from service simply terminated him on account of which he became entitled to receive the terminal benefits and, thus, the punishment awarded also cannot be said to be disproportionate in any manner. 11. In view of the above facts and discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Labour Court in dismissing the reference as also by the learned single Judge which may require any interference by us. 12. The appeal is devoid of any merits and, accordingly, stands dismissed.